Book One: On the Sacred and Apocryphal Books

Chapter Seventeen: On the Epistle to the Hebrews

There was a double doubt about this epistle, one about the author, another about its authority, which two are however so connected that there are few who have doubted about one and not the other.

First then from among the ancient heretics Marcion, on the evidence of Jerome in his preface to the epistle to Titus, and Arius, on the evidence of Theodoret in his preface to the epistle to the Hebrews, taught that the epistle to the Hebrews was neither Paul’s nor sacred. From among the new heretics, Luther in his prologue to the epistle to the Hebrews maintains that this epistle is neither from Paul nor from any Apostle, since it contains certain things against Evangelical and Apostolic doctrine. Brentius agreed with Luther in the Wirtemberg Confession ch. on sacred Scripture, and Chemnitz in his examination of the Council of Trent sess.4, the Magdeburgians also cent.1 bk.2 ch.4 col.55, and other heretics of this time, save for the Calvinists. For Calvin in his Institutes printed in the year 1554 ch.8 sect.216 maintains that this epistle is truly Apostolic, and that the Lutherans err in this regard; yet Calvin doubts whether it is from Paul or from another Apostle, as Barnabas or Luke, as is plain from the same Institutes ch.10 sect.83 and ch.16 sect.25, wherefore the Calvinist ministers in the Confession which they presented at Pissy in article 3 place this epistle in the number of divine Scriptures, but as from an uncertain author.

Beside these manifest heretics, some Catholics too, and especially Latin ones, doubted of this epistle, and therefore they held it of less value, as Eusebius witnesses History bk.3 ch.3 and Jerome in his book on the Illustrious Men on Paul, where he says that this epistle is denied by certain of the Latins to be Paul’s but is either from Barnabas or Luke or Clement the Roman Pontiff. Sixtus Senensis adds in bk.7 of the Sacred Library that it was also by some attributed to Tertullian. In our time Erasmus at the end of his notes on this epistle and Cajetan at the beginning of his commentaries on this epistle, have recalled the question, already almost put to sleep, again into the light.

But that this epistle is canonical and from Paul the Apostle can easily be proved.

First, since it is read in the name of Paul in the Church on the birthday of the Lord and frequently elsewhere.

Second, because it has been produced as testimony and accepted as Paul’s by many most ancient Pontiffs, as Clement I in his epistle to the Corinthians in Eusebius bk.3 ch.38, by Innocent I in epistle 3 to Exuperius, by Gelasius I in the Council of 70 bishops.

Third, because it is placed in the canon of sacred Scriptures in the name of Paul by the Council of Laodicea can.59, by the Third of Carthage can.47, and by Trent sess.4, and it is also acknowledged as Paul’s by the First Council of Nicea, on the evidence of Blessed Thomas on this epistle, and by the First Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon when they approve the twelve chapters of Cyril, the tenth of which is as follows: “Divine Scripture relates that Christ was made High Priest and Apostle of our confession etc.”, and also by the Second Council of Arausicanus, the last canon, where the epistle is said to be the Apostle’s and to be divine Scripture.

Fourth, since it was always received by all the Greek Fathers, as is plain, both because all cite it as the Apostle’s, and because Jerome in epistle to Dardanus affirms it, and also because all who expound the canon number this epistle along with the rest of the Pauline epistles, as Origen in Eusebius History bk.6 ch.18, and Eusebius himself bk.3 ch.3, Gregory Nazianzen in his Song on the canon of Scripture, Athanasius in his Synopsis, Epiphanius Heresy 76, Damascene bk.4 ch.18.

Fifth, it was received also by all the Latins after Lactantius. For only Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, Arnobius do not seem to acknowledge this epistle; for neither do they ever cite it, as I know. But Hilary On the Trinity bk.12, Ambrose on Cain bk.2 ch.2, Jerome in his epistle to Dardanus about the land of promise, Augustine on Christian Doctrine bk.2 ch.8, and Ruffinus on the Creed, and all the rest thereafter acknowledge it as Pauline and frequently cite it. But Philastrius in his Catalogue of Heresies does not doubt to number among the heretics those who reject this epistle and deny that it is Pauline. But the doubt of two or three Latins should not be preferred to the most certain confession of all the others.

Sixth, Blessed Peter seems to make mention of this epistle; for Peter wrote his first letter to Hebrews dispersed among the Gentiles, as is plain from the title, and as Oecumenius teaches, and Erasmus too himself maintains it at the beginning of his notes on this epistle; Peter wrote the second to the same, as is gathered from the words of ch.3: “This second letter, most beloved, I write to you.” But in the same chapter later he subjoins: “As also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you.” Therefore Paul, on the witness of Peter, wrote some letter to the Hebrews.

Lastly, this epistle by the consent of all Catholics is Paul’s, or Luke’s, or Barnabas’, or Clement’s of Rome, or certainly Tertullian’s; but it cannot be Tertullian’s, since Clement of Alexandria, who was somewhat older than Tertullian, affirms that this epistle is Paul’s, in Eusebius History bk.6 ch.11. What of the fact that Tertullian thought this letter to be Barnabas’, as Jerome teaches in his book about the Illustrious Men on Paul? Nor can it be Clement’s of Rome either, since Clement himself cited it as the Apostle Paul’s, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, as Eusebius relates History bk.3 ch.38, and lastly since at the end of this epistle the author says, “Now I pray you further to do this, so that I may more quickly be restored to you.” For these words can in no way fit Clement, who since he was Bishop of Rome will have lived, not in Judea, but in Rome. From which it appears how ineptly Erasmus tries at the end of his notes on this epistle to make Clement the author of it. Lastly, that the epistle is not Luke’s or Barnabas’, nor of any one at all other than Paul, is sufficiently proved by the arguments adduced above; but even if it were Luke’s or Barnabas’, it would be from an Apostolic man, and would not lack Apostolic authority.

But against this epistle five arguments are brought forward by the Magdeburgians, with which the arguments of Luther and Eramus will be taken together. The first is that a prudent antiquity doubted of this epistle. I reply that it is ineptly said that antiquity doubted of this epistle, since they can put forward one alone among the Greeks, Gaius, and two or three among the Latins, while we have on our side so many Pontiffs, so many Councils, all the Greeks save one, and all the Latins save two or three. And if it is a question of antiquity and not of numbers, Clement of Rome is older than Gaius, and Clement of Alexandria is older than Tertullian, and Dionysius the Areopagite older than both, who however cites the epistle in the name of Paul in the epistle to Titus.

The second argument is that the epistle does not have the name of Paul added at the beginning, as all the other epistles do; although they themselves indeed in the same place confess that this argument is not very serious. I reply with Jerome in his preface to the epistles of Blessed Paul: “If therefore it is not Paul’s, because it does not have the name of Paul prefixed, then it is no one’s, because it has no one’s name”. What of the fact that the first epistle of John does not have his name prefixed, and yet there is no doubt it is John’s? And on the contrary, certain gospels have the names of Thomas, of Bartholomew, of James, of Nicodemus, and yet they are by everyone deservedly rejected.

I add besides that Paul for just causes did not add his name to the epistle. For either he did it, as Jerome teaches in the same place, because he knew his name was hateful to the Hebrews, although they were already converts to the faith, on account of the very fact that he disputed very fiercely more than the rest that the old law was abrogated, of which law they were themselves still imitators, Acts ch.21. Or, as the same Jerome teaches on Galatians ch.1, that because in this epistle to the Hebrews ch.3 he was going to say that Christ is the Apostle of our confession, he did not wish in his accustomed manner to name himself at the beginning as Paul the Apostle, lest it should seem that he was comparing himself in any way with Christ. Or finally (as Theodoret teaches in the preface to his commentary on this epistle), because Paul was not Apostle to the Hebrews but to the Gentiles, as he himself confesses in Galatians ch.2, he did not wish in his accustomed manner to begin “Paul the Apostle,” but to expound the doctrine bare, not as an Apostle and Master, but as a friend and associate. Wherefore at the end of the epistle he puts down: “But I ask you, brothers, that you suffer the word of consolation, even if I have written in few words to you etc.,” as if he wished to say, do not take it badly if I, who am not your proper Apostle, have wished to advise and exhort you through letters. For I did it to console you, not to command you. All these reasons are touched on by Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius History bk.6 ch.11

The third argument they take from the diversity of the style, since the speech in this epistle is far graver, more copious, more ornate than in the rest. Nor would he say sufficient who replied that this epistle was written in Hebrew, and that the Apostle could have spoken better in his own tongue than in a foreign one, that is, in Greek. For that this epistle was written not in Hebrew but in Greek is plain from the fact that the testimonies in this epistle are cited according to the Septuagint version, and also because the author of the epistle, in ch.7, translates the Hebrew name Melchizedek, that is, King of Justice, and King of Salem, that is, King of Peace, which he would not do if he was writing in Hebrew.

Some reply that this epistle was first written, not in Hebrew, but in Greek, and that indeed the opinions are Paul’s but the words Luke’s or Clement’s, whom Paul used as interpreter and scribe. And that therefore this epistle is more ornate than the rest because the speech of this epistle was not composed by Paul, as it was in the case of the rest, but by someone else more eloquent. So Origen in Eusebius bk.6 ch.18. Others reckon that this epistle was first written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek speech by Luke or by Clement. So does Eusebius reply, History bk.3 ch.38, and Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius bk.6 ch.11. Nor do the translations [of Hebrew names] conflict with this response. For the Apostle did not translate the Hebrew name Melchizedek into Greek but into Hebrew, so that he might prove something from the etymology and the force of the name. Just as if someone were to say that homicide in Latin is the slaying of a man (hominis caedes), and likewise in the case of interpreting certain Greek words or Hebrew ones. For it is like “phase” in Exodus 12, that is, “the passage of the Lord,” which interpretation is not contained in the Hebrew, and Matthew 27 has “Eli, Eli”, etc., that is “My God, my God”. Nor is the point about the Scriptures being cited according to the Septuagint an obstacle. For the Apostle, if he wrote in Hebrew, produced his testimonies from the Hebrew source, but the Greek translator wanted to translate those words cited by Paul as they were already translated by the Septuagint, lest anything novel be introduced to Greek ears. Nor is this new, for how many testimonies in the Hebrew tongue did the same Apostle bring forward in the speech which he gave in the synagogue at Antioch? And yet Luke reported them all, Acts 13, according to the Septuagint version. Of these two solutions, although each is probable, yet the first seems simpler and also freer.

The fourth argument, on which the Magdeburgians most of all rely, is of this sort: the author of this epistle ch.2 puts himself in the number of those who were converted to the faith by the Apostles, for he says: “How shall we escape if we have neglected so great a salvation, which, when it began first to be announced through the Lord by those who heard him, was confirmed in us, God giving witness through signs and power etc.” But Paul in Galatians ch.1 gravely affirms that he learnt the Gospel through revelation not from man or through man but from Christ; therefore Paul was not the author of this epistle.

I reply first that Blessed Paul says these things, not about himself, but about the men of his time, the way that Isaiah ch.64 says in the person of the people, “We have all become impure and all our justice is as filthy rags; there is none who calls on your name, who rises and clings to you, etc.”, in which place it is plain that Isaiah is not speaking of himself, because he calls upon God in the same place in a long prayer. I add further that it is not absurd if Paul puts himself in the number of those who were confirmed by the Apostles. For here he is dealing not with confirmation through doctrine but through miracles; for he says that salvation, that is, the preaching of salvation was confirmed through the Apostles, God giving witness through signs and power. But who can deny that Paul, after he was converted, even if through revelation he most fully taught the Gospel, was yet confirmed in the faith by hearing the miracles of Peter and the other Apostles, and especially by that miracle by which he himself by the hands of Ananias received the sight of his eyes.

The fifth argument is that the author of this epistle is in conflict with the doctrine of the Lord. For the Lord says, Matthew 11, “come to me all of you”, but here he excludes those who have once sinned; for he speaks as follows in ch.6, “It is impossible for them who have once been enlightened to be again renewed to repentance”. And in ch.10 he affirms that there is left no sacrifice for sin for those who voluntarily sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, and in ch.12 that Esau did not find place for repentance.

I reply that these places no more conflict with the verse “come to me all of you” than do the words of the Lord, Matthew 32, where he says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not remitted either in this world or in the next. For the Apostle is not speaking of any sinner whatever, but of him who sins against the Holy Spirit, that is, who willingly opposes the known and examined truth.

Further such sins are said to be unforgivable for three reasons. First, because for the most part men of this sort are not converted, and sins of this sort are not remitted, although absolutely the contrary can happen and sometimes does happen in fact; just as in the case of bodily sicknesses we call those incurable that, for the most part, are not cured, although sometimes they are cured; and we call those curable that are for the most part cured, although sometimes they are not cured.

Second, since those who sin against the Holy Spirit directly resist the grace by which alone they can be cured; in the same way that the doctor says about him who cannot be healed save by the cutting of the vein, and who in no way accepts this remedy, that it is not possible for him to be healed; yet not for this reason is it denied that some very wise doctor could persuade the sick man to accept the cutting of the vein. Third, he who sins from malice has not in himself whereby he deserves remission, and for this reason his sin is said to be unforgivable, although absolutely it could be remitted. But he who sins from ignorance or weakness has something whereby he may provoke the mercy of God, according to the word of the Apostle in I Timothy ch.1, “I found mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief”.

And this response indeed seems to be sufficient to take away the difficulty that arose from the earlier places. But another response can be applied. For many expound the earlier place from Hebrews 6, and almost all, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Anslem, Sedulius, and others on this place, and also Augustine at the end of the exposition he began on the epistle to the Romans, expound it of the renovation to repentance that happens in baptism, not of the renovation to the repentance that happens in reconciliation after baptism. For that Blessed Paul is speaking here of baptism is sufficiently indicated by the words, “not laying again the foundation or repentance, of faith, of baptisms, etc.” and by these, “those who have once been enlightened”.

For in Dionysius on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ch.2 and in others of the ancients baptism is called enlightenment, because it is the sacrament of faith. And the words, “to be again renewed” mean the same, for (as Augustine teaches in the place cited) we are properly renewed by baptism, and cured by reconciliation. Lastly too the words, “crucifying again the Son of God”, for in baptism we represent the death and burial of Christ, as is said in Romans 6, and as Christ died only once, so we too can be baptized only once. Blessed Paul therefore is disputing against deserters from the faith, and he teaches that none should hope that after receiving baptism in the Church he can lay another foundation anywhere else and find another baptism; for that is impossible since there is only one true baptism, and it cannot be repeated. The second place has the same sense. For truly “to those who voluntarily sin”, that is, depart from the already known and received truth of the faith, “there is left no sacrifice for sin”; not because there is no place for repentance, but because there is no truly efficacious sacrifice save the death of Christ, which they despise by apostasy. For neither can another Christ by found, nor another baptism in which his death is represented.

To the words from ch.12 I say that Esau in two ways did not find place for repentance; in one way with his father, because the thing lost was irrecoverable; in another way with God, because he did not rightly do penance, as Chrysostom expounds on this place. The Apostle, therefore, wishing to deter men from lapse, puts forward the uncertain success of repentance. For as Esau could not recover the inheritance, because it was irrecoverable, so the sinner cannot recover innocence, virginity, and the like; and in the way that Esau did not rightly do penance, although he wept, and therefore did not appease God, so sinners often seem to do penance, and yet do not appease God, because they do not do penance as they ought.

The sixth argument is from Cajetan in his commentary on this epistle. The author of this epistle proves in ch.1 that Christ is the Son of God, from the words in 2 Kings ch.7, “Therefore I will be to him as a Father”, and these words are understood literally of Solomon, and only from the literal sense are firm arguments drawn; therefore either this author is not Paul, or Paul is not arguing solidly.

I reply that the Apostle argues similarly in Romans 10 and I Corinthians 9, and yet it cannot be said that these letters are not Paul’s or that Paul is not arguing solidly; the argument therefore of the Apostle is very strong, since those to whom he writes admitted that Solomon bore the figure of Christ, nor could they deny this, as Divine Augustine proves in his book on the Unity of the Church ch.8. For both 2 Kings ch.7 and Psalm 71 say many things about Solomon that do not fit him save as he was a figure of Christ. As the words, “I will establish your kingdom for ever”, and these, “he will dominate from sea to sea, and all the kings of the earth will adore him, all the nations will serve him, etc.”

The seventh argument is from the same Cajetan. In Hebrews 9 the author says that there was in the arc an urn containing manna, and the rod of Aaron which flowered, and the tables of the law; but in 3 Kings ch.8 only the tables of the law are related as having been in the arc; therefore either Paul is lying or the author of this epistle is not Paul.

I reply that in the time of Solomon there was in the arc only the tables of the law, as is said in 3 Kings ch.8; yet afterwards the Jews put in it also the urn and the rod. That fact Paul could know from tradition. Thus did Theophylact solve the problem, who also advises that the Jews of his own time thought this. Add that the author of the book of Kings, when he says that in the arc was only the two tables, seems to insinuate that in his time there was something else that was not there in the time of Solomon; for he seems to have wished to say that although now certain other things are in the arc besides the tables of the law, yet in the time when the arc was brought into the temple by Solomon, there was nothing in it besides the two tables. What too if, as some wish, the urn and the rod were in some exterior part of the arc, and not within the arc itself?

The last argument is that of Erasmus and Cajetan. The author of this epistle ch.9, when speaking of a Testament properly speaking, which is confirmed by the death of the testator, cites the words of Exodus 24, “Here is the blood of the Testament, which the Lord commanded us”, but in Exodus according to the Hebraic truth there is no mention of a Testament but of a pact. For the Hebrew words of Exodus 24 have no other sense than this, “behold the blood of the league which the Lord has pledged with you in all these words;” therefore either Paul did not know the Hebrew tongue or the author of this epistle was not Paul.

I reply that the question is either about the thing or the name; if about the name, then Erasmus unjustly makes accusation against this author. For not only this author but the Septuagint too always translate the Hebrew word as “testament”, as is plain from the Psalms that we have in the Septuagint version, and from Jerome on Malachi ch.2, where he affirms that the Septuagint almost always translated it as “testament”. And the Apostle Paul in Romans ch.9 and Galatians chs.3 and 4, speaking of the old law, always spoke of Testament where the Hebrew was used; indeed so common in the Church is the word Testament for that Hebrew word that we say and hear nothing more frequently than Old Testament and New Testament.

But if the question is not about the name but the thing, as if the author of this epistle twisted this place of Exodus, in which a league is being dealt with, to Testament properly speaking, one must reply that the promise of eternal life, which is treated in the Old Testament through figures and in the New Testament openly, is at the same time a Testament and a pact: a Testament because it contains a disposition about giving eternal life to the sons of God, which was not ratified before the death of the testator. For a Testament is a disposition of an inheritance, which is not ratified before the testator dies. But the promise of God is at the same time a pact, because it has a condition annexed. For the testator God did not wish to give eternal life save to those who observed his laws, and for this reason it is called a league and a pact. Therefore Moses and Paul are already speaking about the same thing in Exodus ch.24 and Hebrews ch.9, and Moses indeed calls it a pact but understands, not any pact at all, but a pact about giving an inheritance after the death of the testator, and therefore he scattered blood on the people, which is a figure of the blood of Christ to be poured out for us; but Paul calls it a Testament but understands it, not of any sort of testament, but of a conditional one, that is, one that is at the same time a pact.

Robert Bellarmine’s: Controversies of the Christian Faith – Volume 1: On the Word of God — HOME